Proper reviews

[longsider]

At least 15 such rifles 'arrive on my desk' every year, Ricky. The manufacturers and importers genuinely want to find out what needs to be done to make their products marketable. Others provide the same service, I assure you. I get to see prototypes at all sorts of stages, again as do others, and 'ready to go' is one of those stages.

I'm not disputing that Terry and I don't doubt that manufacturers value your opinion but I think you are missing my point about yours not being a independent review of the rifle after having your own input in to its build at multiple stages . if they are sending you a rifle for your advice as to how it can be improved in any of its stages imo that's a different matter. I can understand you refusing to review a rifle due to faults in any safety features but if a manufacturer has chosen to send you a rifle with poor balance , a heavy trigger or anything that makes it unfit for purpose but in their mind is "ready to go" I think your input should end there and a review of that rifle should start . you can argue that every stage in production is a chance for you to comment on anything negative you foresee and allow the manufacturer to respond by eliminating these problems or you won't review the finished article . if the manufacturer hasn't asked for your advice then run a review without giving them any , if they have asked for your advice or you have told them you won't proceed unless they take your advice I thought you might see that any review that followed wouldn't be impartial as you have worked on the rifle as a consultant. Just my opinion and I value yours too . I value yours so much I pay £4.00 a month for the chance to take it . I trust your knowledge of each rifle you review so much that I don't even need to read any of them because I can move on to one of the hunting pieces now safe in the knowledge that if a rifle has your name under it its as good as it needs to be . I'm not questioning your technical knowledge just having a opinion on how I would do it differently . I suppose there could be a argument that a "test" is different to a "review" on account of a tester helping to prepare the rifle for general release where a reviewer gives his opinion on the rifle after it is launched . if this is the case can we have more reviews please . atb Terry.

[derekj]

This gun has been reviewed by at least one of the mags. Think it may have been Mark Camoccio in Gunmart. Last year, I believe.

Camoccio's reviews are pretty good. As I recall, he was impressed with the gun.

Yes agreed re.MC reviews. He's also lovely guy to chat with too. I remember a young Mark shooting like a demon with his old FWB Sport, he could smack a blue bottle off an oak tree with that rifle. Fixed mag Zeiss scope as well if iirc. Derek

[oliver13]

I can't help thinking that testing rifles sent from manufacturers is less than ideal.
I think you should be getting them anonymously from gunshops, I believe that's how Which magazine does it. Straightaway you remove a whole area of potential criticism.

The downside is you spend a lot of money & end up with an office stuffed with guns, maybe you could use them as competition prizes or raffle them off somehow.

[nimrod177]

Mr TD would you do a side by side review of the £1900 pulsar and a £1300 bobcat please and let us know your findings as i would be very much interested in your findings as i own both? And there is a noticeable difference. Also my post was a bit tongue in cheek as i knew exactly what you meant but only wrote what i did because i was sure others were thinking the same, but unfortunately the way you put it left it open to abuse/comment. Believe me there was no malice of intent.

[longsider]

I can't help thinking that testing rifles sent from manufacturers is less than ideal.
I think you should be getting them anonymously from gunshops, I believe that's how Which magazine does it. Straightaway you remove a whole area of potential criticism.

The downside is you spend a lot of money & end up with an office stuffed with guns, maybe you could use them as competition prizes or raffle them off somehow.

As a production manager in a lighting company and when I was asked by a big company if they could test our lights with a view to ordering I would never consider going and getting them from stock and sending them . They would receive perfect examples of the product that had been checked and then checked again so that I knew when they arrived at the other end the chances of anything going wrong were slim . in much the same way if I was the general manager at a Airgun mnanufacturer and I was told that Airgun World wanted a rifle to review I would be sending the best example I had at hand . A lot of sales could be generated or lost from that review and I certainly wouldn't risk sending a ex demo rifle . I don't mean I would send a specially tuned rifle that would obviously perform better than the production model but certainly not something that had done the rounds of the shooting shows either.

[RichardH]

As a production manager in a lighting company and when I was asked by a big company if they could test our lights with a view to ordering I would never consider going and getting them from stock and sending them . They would receive perfect examples of the product that had been checked and then checked again so that I knew when they arrived at the other end the chances of anything going wrong were slim . in much the same way if I was the general manager at a Airgun mnanufacturer and I was told that Airgun World wanted a rifle to review I would be sending the best example I had at hand . A lot of sales could be generated or lost from that review and I certainly wouldn't risk sending a ex demo rifle . I don't mean I would send a specially tuned rifle that would obviously perform better than the production model but certainly not something that had done the rounds of the shooting shows either.

Thats how it has to be, would be madness to do anything else.

[Terry D]

if they are sending you a rifle for your advice as to how it can be improved in any of its stages imo that's a different matter.

That's exactly why they send me, and other testers, prototypes in their various stages.

... if a manufacturer has chosen to send you a rifle with poor balance , a heavy trigger or anything that makes it unfit for purpose but in their mind is "ready to go" I think your input should end there and a review of that rifle should start .


Rather than give my opinion and have obvious faults rectified? How would that be better for anyone?

... if the manufacturer hasn't asked for your advice then run a review without giving them any

Again, why would I do that? If a fault can be rectified, why on earth would I not make a manufacturer aware of it and give them the opportunity to produce a better gun?

, if they have asked for your advice or you have told them you won't proceed unless they take your advice I thought you might see that any review that followed wouldn't be impartial as you have worked on the rifle as a consultant.

It's not like that at all. If the advice I, or others, give is ignored, and it sometimes is, then I'll criticise that feature. Providing the gun is fit for purpose, the review goes ahead. Remember how many years I was going on about adjustable butt pads on expensive rifles, and sporter stocks having a similar degree of control provided by match guns? That advice was ignored for ages, and I criticised test rifles because of it. Now we have these options on most guns, but not all, and I've had a moan about it not being present on the new Wildcat in this month's Airgun World. That's how it works.

I suppose there could be a argument that a "test" is different to a "review" on account of a tester helping to prepare the rifle for general release where a reviewer gives his opinion on the rifle after it is launched . if this is the case can we have more reviews please . atb Terry.

There are dozens of shooters out there who help manufacturers improve their products, in fact at least 10 of them are members of this BBS. Without their input, I believe the airguns we use would be of lower quality and their owners would get less performance and pleasure from them. Are you really saying those who review airguns shouldn't give manufacturers the benefit of our experience? We make suggestions which the manufacturers consider, then act upon, or not. I know the manufacturers value our input, and I believe that input is a positive contribution. It doesn't result in impartiality - it's not something for which we're paid, by the way - it results in better guns.
I hope that explains things, mate, and thanks for the kind words.

[Gollum]

Terry you must get soooooooooooooooo fed up of constantly having to defend and explain you position. I do admire the way you never (that I have seen) lose your temper and start calling people rude names

[Terry D]

... if I was the general manager at a Airgun mnanufacturer and I was told that Airgun World wanted a rifle to review I would be sending the best example I had at hand . A lot of sales could be generated or lost from that review and I certainly wouldn't risk sending a ex demo rifle . I don't mean I would send a specially tuned rifle that would obviously perform better than the production model but certainly not something that had done the rounds of the shooting shows either.

On at least three occasions in the last three years, the manufacturer/importer has specifically requested me to take one of the demo models from a show or game fair, and test it for the magazine. That was the desired evaluation and it gave me valuable info when I interviewed those who staffed the ranges where the rifles were used. They won't be the last ex-demo rifles tested, I assure you of that.

[Terry D]

Terry you must get soooooooooooooooo fed up of constantly having to defend and explain you position. I do admire the way you never (that I have seen) lose your temper and start calling people rude names

People have a right to question things, Gollum, and provided it's done with a reasonable degree of manners, I'll return the favour. I'll always challenge misguided, or flat-out untrue statements, on here and anywhere else, and I'm always accessible to those who genuinely want to know the truth, rather than simply gob-off and spout lies to serve their sad agendas.

[Terry D]

Mr TD would you do a side by side review of the £1900 pulsar and a £1300 bobcat please and let us know your findings as i would be very much interested in your findings as i own both? And there is a noticeable difference. Also my post was a bit tongue in cheek as i knew exactly what you meant but only wrote what i did because i was sure others were thinking the same, but unfortunately the way you put it left it open to abuse/comment. Believe me there was no malice of intent.

No probs, Rodders. I've tested the Wildcat in the latest edition of Airgun World, and the Pulsar a few months ago, albeit the most expensive version, so there's a comparison to be made there quite easily. Perhaps a side-by-side comparison would be on the cards in the future. I'm not a fan of repeating so much information but perhaps these rifles are special cases. We'll see.

[Terry D]

I can't help thinking that testing rifles sent from manufacturers is less than ideal.
I think you should be getting them anonymously from gunshops, I believe that's how Which magazine does it. Straightaway you remove a whole area of potential criticism.

The downside is you spend a lot of money & end up with an office stuffed with guns, maybe you could use them as competition prizes or raffle them off somehow.

That would also mean leaving all reviews until the rifles hit the shops, rather than covering the guns as soon as they're ready for release. Not good at all. We get more readers asking about new guns than any other subject and in publishing there's enough lead time to deal with as it is, without only reviewing rifles that are old news by the time we get to them.

Besides, apart from the logistical problems of driving all over the place to buy guns - we could hardly use the same local outlets every time - some would say the guns we bought were specially stocked for us to collect them. No, I think it works best as it is, really.

[longsider]

There are dozens of shooters out there who help manufacturers improve their products, in fact at least 10 of them are members of this BBS. Without their input, I believe the airguns we use would be of lower quality and their owners would get less performance and pleasure from them. Are you really saying those who review airguns shouldn't give manufacturers the benefit of our experience? We make suggestions which the manufacturers consider, then act upon, or not. I know the manufacturers value our input, and I believe that input is a positive contribution. It doesn't result in impartiality - it's not something for which we're paid, by the way - it results in better guns.
I hope that explains things, mate, and thanks for the kind words.

Just to clarify , I am aware that the views of experts like yourself and others like you during the design and production stage helps Shooters like myself to own very good air rifles ( except for the expert who told air arms the bolt on a S410 was ready for production ) . I am also not jumping on the advertising revenue / back handers bandwagon . The last time the "AW reviews" debate came up on the forum you explained to me via PM why income from advertising didn't sway your judgment one way or the other and I have no reason to doubt what you said . You see rifles from the start of their designs on computer screens ,all the way to your reviews and in to the shops and you know how the process and communication with manufacturers works . we ( your readers ) only see reviews of great rifles on a monthly basis and because we have no understanding why you only arrive at positive conclusions for them all its easy for people to decide that you are doing it for your own reasons and gain rather than delivering accurate and impartial information about that months chosen rifle. This thread started off as a member asking if anyone had seen a review of his rifle in any airgun mag and that was enough to instantly bring the whole debate of magazine reviews in to question again . This should tell you and your staff that there are a lot of people with their suspicions and conspiracy theories regarding the subject whether it fazes you or not . I wont bother anybody with any more of my views on the subject because its about to start going round and around in circles . thanks for your time and input Terry , sorry to the guy who's original question got swamped in it all . atb Ricky

[fitzcarraldo]

Reviews? Pah. No matter if it's guns, motorbikes, cars, restaurants or wimmin's clothing it all comes down to the prejudices of the tester.

Chris Evans reviews cars for the Mail on Sunday and refers to all cars as, 'She'. A A Gill and Giles Coren spend three quarters of their column on non-related issues as a run up to the main event before revealing non-aggressive findings on a newly opened restaurant. Wimmins shoes can fill half a weekend's supplement solely on straps, heel height and sole colouring.

Until 'Cycle' magazine came along the motor cycle manufacturers colluded with publishers to massage results until every lemon was pronounced, in couched terms, as the one to buy. There was a never a better time to buy a new motor bike than, 'Now'.

As the old saw goes, 'Always read between the lines'.

Those that can't / don't will forever be doomed to repeat their experience.

[Terry D]

This should tell you and your staff that there are a lot of people with their suspicions and conspiracy theories regarding the subject ...

... and every subject in the world, mate. That will never change, no matter what anyone does or how they do it.

All I can do is review guns as I see them, and discuss those reviews with those who are interested in their content. I've been doing that on here for over 14 years, now and I can't see that changing anytime soon.

All the best.